in Re: Joel Christopher Barton ( 2017 )

DENY; and Opinion Filed December 11, 2017.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-00364-CV
IN RE JOEL CHRISTOPHER BARTON, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 219-50662-07
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Myers, and Boatright
Opinion by Justice Boatright
In this original proceeding, relator Joel Christopher Barton seeks review of an order finding
Barton in criminal contempt for violations of a divorce decree and order in a suit affecting the
parent-child relationship. We deny the petition as moot because we find the parties have entered
an enforceable Rule 11 agreement that provides Barton with the relief requested in this proceeding
and resolves the issues raised.
The trial court’s contempt order found Barton in criminal contempt for seventy-five
violations of an amended order, including failure to pay $5,286.74 in medical expenses, failure to
pay $1,346.23 in cell phones charges, violating the possession order by failing to provide proper
travel notice and information, and failing to provide change of address and change of employment
information. The trial court ordered Barton to pay $37,500 in fines, sentenced Barton to 179 days
incarceration per violation to be served concurrently, suspended commitment, and placed Barton
on community supervision. In this original proceeding, Barton contends the contempt order is void
and should be vacated. He asks this Court to grant the petition for writ of mandamus and issue a
writ directing the trial court to vacate the contempt order.
After Barton filed this proceeding, the parties agreed to settle the case. An agreement to
settle a case is enforceable by the trial court if it complies with Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure. Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995). ). To comply with Rule 11, the
agreement must be either: (1) in writing, signed, and filed with the papers as part of the record; or
(2) made in open court and entered of record. TEX. R. CIV. P. 11. The parties read their agreement
into the record before an associate judge and attested under oath that they agreed to the matters set
out in the record. A valid Rule 11 agreement must contain all essential terms of the agreement and
must be complete in every material detail. Padilla, 907 S.W.2d at 460. The parties agreed to make
the criminal contempt orders and punishments void, and Barton agreed to pay the disputed
expenses. The parties’ agreement, therefore, constitutes a valid and enforceable Rule 11
agreement.
The agreement renders this proceeding moot because the agreement addresses and resolves
the complaints Barton raises here and provides him the relief he requests from this Court. Although
the trial court has not rendered a judgment vacating the contempt order, it has no authority to
render judgment which does not fall strictly within the terms of the agreement dictated into the
record by the parties themselves. Stadil v. Stadil, No. 05-93-00303-CV, 1994 WL 469321, at *2
(Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 31, 1994, no writ). The agreement states that the parties have agreed to
deem the contempt order void, and the trial court has a ministerial duty to strictly enforce that
agreement.
–2–
Accordingly, we deny the petition as moot in light of the parties’ valid and enforceable
Rule 11 agreement.
/Jason Boatright/
JASON BOATRIGHT
JUSTICE
170364F.P05
–3–